Help me understand...”Modest Fashion”

[OhDear2200]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-50067975

There is something that bugs me about this and I need the MN feminists to help me out (be gentle it’s my first post in this area though a regular reader).

Sooo what is it that bugs me?

Why do we need commentary on women (yep no mention of men) and what we wear? Or am I over reacting is it just a conversation about fashion?

But if a man wore baggy trousers it’s not called modest is it??! It’s called wearing baggy trousers. Why is a woman modest or not modest.

Help me either get a grip or understand this better???

I mean I get it, I really do. In a porn saturated culture, this desire of women to be left the fuck alone for five minutes from the barrage of sleazy dms and dick pics, plastic surgery ads and the latest trends in sexual abuse masquerading as kinky sex, I can totally sympathize with that. But if that's indeed what it's about, I don't think the label 'modest' is doing women any favours, it's defeatist.

It's an old fashioned term, seems to be aimed at women, specifically religious women. I associate the word with shame.

I have no need to seek modest clothes out, I can pick out sensible clothes for myself.

Sounds like a choice made by someone else.

No problem dressing modestly, as frieda said, they and most people dress like that usually on a working day, and socially.

Young and (not so young) grownups like to flaunt it when the weather is warmer. That is a natural response, healthy even.

But the real flaunting can be seen at Gay Pride. The trend there is definitely not modest

upfield I do hear what you’re saying, and I agree that there is a certain amount of the tediously woke in the trend towards a less overtly (I say ‘overtly’) male-centred way of dressing. Where I disagree with you is in what appears to be your inherent suspicion of any such dressing.
In this context I think it’s helpful to consider fashions in footwear. Where do you site the widespread adoption of trainers? To me, it’s about women refusing to be crippled by the heels which incapacitate and hence infantilise them, and moreover which compel a gait involving exaggerated movement of hips and bottom.

Sorry - and for clarity I don’t mean ‘and therefore wantonly provoking men’s uncontrollable urges’ but rather ‘presenting themselves as a decorative object for the male gaze’. See the various furores about women being required to wear heels in professional contexts.

“ Why would knowing what someone else's body shape was make you uncomfortable?”
It’s them pesky “urges” again......

You can't run in heels, dolly shoes, platforms, flip flops etc

I beg to differ.

Definitely can run in flip flops and heels (11th floor flat that you had to run up the stairs to because the lift was always broken and if you dawdled you were likely to be mugged)

The term ‘modest’ forces a patriarchal agenda onto sartorial choices which could be driven by any number of different factors, thus reinforcing cultural assumptions of the female body as pornographic image.

Oliversmumsarmy
That may well work for you but generally speaking, women don't move faster in restricted shoes.

Where I disagree with you is in what appears to be your inherent suspicion of any such dressing. I thought I'd made it clear pages back that I have no problem with the clothes and advocate for women dressing for comfort, but it's the label 'modest' I object to. I dress for comfort probably more than the average UK woman, but anyone calling my outfit 'modest' sets off the urge to put on a bikini top and mini skirt as a big ole f* you. I also mentioned how a lot of these clothes in the article aren't necessarily that comfortable or practical.

Where I disagree with you is in what appears to be your inherent suspicion ofanysuch dressing

I really don't think that is what Upfield means. The suspicion does not relate to the style of clothing but the motives behind describing it as "modest" ; particularly when the clothes shown in the article linked to by the OP are nothing more than ordinary, everyday clothes worn by millions of women.

My suspicion also extends to the posters disingenuously claiming "modest" is merely a useful tag to assist shoppers.

Thank you HumberHellraiser for articulating much better than I the issue with 'modest' as a term.

Modest all too often means very definitely female stereotyped or feminine clothing (dress, skirt, embellished twiddly bits and feminine decoration) but controlling and covering any body parts that might indicate the female sex.

So eg a woman weRing sloppy sweatshirt, Adidas joggers and a Chicago bears cap would Not be described as modest, because to be modest implies to be inherently and overtly feminine but with any sexuality obviously controlled.

Most western women have been wearing comfortable,, practical clothes that cover their flesh as a matter of routine for decades. Jeans and jumpers, smart trousers and long sleeved blouses, cargo pants and cotton tops.

But these clothes don't 'signal' piety. They don't signal subservience so they aren't good enough.

The clothes in the article are no less revealing of the female form, not more practical, no more covering than ordinary western clothes that have been freely available all along. The tag 'modest' is not about coverage, or comfort, or practicality. It is about saying 'look at me, I'm a virtuous woman' and for one woman to be virtuous another must lack virtue. It is a label which exists only to judge.

“ My suspicion also extends to the posters disingenuously claiming "modest" is merely a useful tag to assist shoppers.”
This is my main concern, actually. There is a lot of “soft” anti feminism going on at the moment.

I thought I'd made it clear pages back that I have no problem with the clothes and advocate for women dressing for comfort, but it's the label 'modest' I object to

You did. The misinterpretation of what you have been posting is quite surprising.

Apologies, I am late to this party and haven’t read the whole thread. I think we are in complete agreement. I must have been reading out of context your comment about anti-plastic-surgery etc.
What we are both arguing, it seems, is that as soon as the label ‘modest’ rears its ugly head we are thrust into a world of uncontrolled male urges and women’s responsibility to contain those urges by their clothing choices.

The word modest seems to be a loaded term.

As BertrandRussell said, a lot of “soft” anti feminism going on at the moment

Subtle
Not accidental
Associated with shaming

Aimed at women.
Nice.

Dear Shona,
The modest fashion trend has in fact increased diversity and inclusiveness in the western countries. Yet you said
You have so missed the point I'm not sure where to begin. and went on a tangent about judgement. As for telling women how to dress that still happens and was worse before modest fashion. I have had jobs where I was required to wear a short skirt, heels and a tight fitting blouse. A woman who wished to dress along the lines of modest fashion would be barred from that job.
Prior to modest fashion being added, there were no clothes for women from Eastern countries, especially Muslim women, that they could wear to school and work without looking completely alien. It is a documented fact that numerous women from these background would not go to school or to professional jobs because they could not find anything to wear that was accepted in the dress code and met their spiritual or personal preferences. It is not just my experience, there are many articles on this fact.
The modest fashion trend has given these women clothing choices that are now accepted in the mainstream western world as appropriate office wear. Fashion is more diverse and inclusive because of it.
As I say, I don’t care about the name modest one way or the other but I do think that the trend itself has been good for women who were marginalised before it existed because they did not want to wear more revealing clothing.
I’d be perfectly happy if the term modest were replaced with another, what I am against is eliminating the fashion style in its entirety because it is not a bad thing in and of itself.

Did I say “you can’t wake people who are pretending to be asleep” or did I just think it?

^whilst long sleeved clothing might have always existed now it is the only thing that exists.

Even in my local Primark they seem to have done away with the plain short sleeved t shirts.

You can only get long sleeved ones now.
Don’t know if this is a national thing or just our local store.^

That’s because it is winter, so the shops will have long sleeve winter clothes now. Just wait for spring, then the short sleeves will come back.

In any case, at least dressing as a 'whore' was making an attempt to challenge the patriarchal rules set up by men and throw it back in their faces. The term 'modest' positively embraces patriarchy.

Some would say the opposite. After all men decide what a whore should wear and look like, not women. It was all about advertising a woman’s body that is for sale. They want T&A on display, they want the crippling stilettos, they want the doll face makeup. And doing all that gives men more visual pleasure than taking the opposite approach and dressing in a glamourous but non whore fashion which states that your body is not for sale and is your own which you dress for your own pleasure not caring about the male gaze.

Prior to modest fashion being added, there were no clothes for women from Eastern countries, especially Muslim women

But you are in the UK.

I know there has been clothing suitable for Muslim women as a lot of my Muslim friends have never had a problem finding clothes.

If I went to Iraq would I be out of line bitching there are no mini skirts and bikinis on offer

My problem is now all there is in stores is “modest” clothing and now for the first time in a long while I have been invited to something where I need to dress up.

I can’t find a single thing to wear to the point that I will probably end up making my excuses and not going.

PlanDeRaccordement

In years gone by there has always been a stack of short sleeves and spaghetti strapped t. Shirts throughout winter

It started last year when I went to get the v neck t.shirt and found they only now do the crew neck variety.

I have a panic attack if I wear stuff around my neck and wrists.

Ended up buying the largest size so the neck scooped down

I buy them for work wear and just wearing day to day

Planderaccordement I'm all for Muslim women having more clothing options. What I'm against is using sexist religious ideals from the dark ages to market clothes to all women, as though adhering to patriarchal ideals somehow makes you a superior, virtuous, unrapeable kind of woman. The embrace of the term 'modest' by non-religious women is born from virtue-signalling how cool they are with Islam, and cultural relativism, which is bad for women, as it prohibits criticism of the sexist elements of different cultures. Of course, there's a lot of willful ignorance on this thread. Combining criticism of religious practices and what women wear hits a raw nerve and some are so heavily invested they refuse to engage with the points being made and simply say 'I disagree, you're telling women what to wear (we're not) etc', dodging any real analysis of what's going on because it will unearth too many uncomfortable truths.

Please can you support the statement that Muslim women could not find suitable clothes to wear to work before “modest fashion”?